5% Villa- Oliver Holt Interview

[Sexual Ealing]

I know probably any manager could come up with something he wasn't happy about during his time in charge that he could claim he resigned about. Just as in any job. Whether its nasty emails (AM) or not getting a blank cheque book (MON). allegedly

But they don't, though, do they?

DO'L didn't, Scolari didn't, Hodgson didn't, Souness didn't, Jewell didn't, Ramos didn't, Jol didn't, Robson didn't, Zola didn't.

And even if they had, the club wouldn't have paid out.

Go on...

[Villa'Zawg]

Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law. 

The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."

[Sexual Ealing]

Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law. 

The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."

Thank you, I appreciate your yellow, steamy candour.

[Greg N'Ash]

I know probably any manager could come up with something he wasn't happy about during his time in charge that he could claim he resigned about. Just as in any job. Whether its nasty emails (AM) or not getting a blank cheque book (MON). allegedly

But they don't, though, do they?

DO'L didn't, Scolari didn't, Hodgson didn't, Souness didn't, Jewell didn't, Ramos didn't, Jol didn't, Robson didn't, Zola didn't.

And even if they had, the club wouldn't have paid out.

Go on...

but they're not a litigious ****** are they? And in a lot of cases they would have won but they couldn't arsed/got a decent settlement. which leaves MON.... just do a google for MON wins case or MON wins damages and read some of them... there's pelenty of them

[Villa'Zawg]

I know probably any manager could come up with something he wasn't happy about during his time in charge that he could claim he resigned about. Just as in any job. Whether its nasty emails (AM) or not getting a blank cheque book (MON). allegedly

But they don't, though, do they?

DO'L didn't, Scolari didn't, Hodgson didn't, Souness didn't, Jewell didn't, Ramos didn't, Jol didn't, Robson didn't, Zola didn't.

And even if they had, the club wouldn't have paid out.

Go on...

but they're not a litigious c***s are they? And in a lot of cases they would have won but they couldn't arsed/got a decent settlement. which leaves MON.... just do a google for MON wins case or MON wins damages and read some of them... there's pelenty of them

Doesn't that indicate that he is usually right?

[Sexual Ealing]

I know probably any manager could come up with something he wasn't happy about during his time in charge that he could claim he resigned about. Just as in any job. Whether its nasty emails (AM) or not getting a blank cheque book (MON). allegedly

But they don't, though, do they?

DO'L didn't, Scolari didn't, Hodgson didn't, Souness didn't, Jewell didn't, Ramos didn't, Jol didn't, Robson didn't, Zola didn't.

And even if they had, the club wouldn't have paid out.

Go on...

but they're not a litigious c***s are they? And in a lot of cases they would have won but they couldn't arsed/got a decent settlement. which leaves MON.... just do a google for MON wins case or MON wins damages and read some of them... there's pelenty of them

Really? DO'L, Souness, Jewell...the only thing keeping them from millions of unearned pounds is their inherent decency (as opposed to that tyrant O'Neill)?

Ok, Greg. Ok.

[Greg N'Ash]

Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law. 

The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."

hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.

[Greg N'Ash]

I know probably any manager could come up with something he wasn't happy about during his time in charge that he could claim he resigned about. Just as in any job. Whether its nasty emails (AM) or not getting a blank cheque book (MON). allegedly

But they don't, though, do they?

DO'L didn't, Scolari didn't, Hodgson didn't, Souness didn't, Jewell didn't, Ramos didn't, Jol didn't, Robson didn't, Zola didn't.

And even if they had, the club wouldn't have paid out.

Go on...

but they're not a litigious c***s are they? And in a lot of cases they would have won but they couldn't arsed/got a decent settlement. which leaves MON.... just do a google for MON wins case or MON wins damages and read some of them... there's pelenty of them

Doesn't that indicate that he is usually right?

he's right in the same way as anyone who gets insulted on here could probably take someone to court. But you'd be a complete shit if you did. Hell you'd probably be a multi-millionaire

[KevinGage]

I might have missed it with all the other shenanigans going on, but did MON claim constructive dismissal?  I'm aware there was a payout and settlement, but that doesn't necessarily amount to the same thing.

This is what occurred when Alan Curbishley went that route and the tribunal found in his favour (and here's a link just for you villainous, you old sweetie pie you) :  clicky

We can confirm that Alan Curbishley and West Ham have finalised all issues in relation to his departure from the club. The Managers' arbitration tribunal of the FA Premier League previously had unanimously upheld Alan Curbishley's claim of wrongful dismissal against West Ham United Football Club.

"He resigned at the beginning of the 2008-09 season after the club sold Anton Ferdinand and subsequently George McCartney to Sunderland against his wishes.

"The tribunal upheld Alan Curbishley's right to have ultimate sole authority in relation to the sale and purchase of players, found that the conduct of the club amounted to a fundamental breach of contract and that Alan Curbishley was therefore entitled to resign."

Different cases different outcomes of course. The findings in Curbisley's case neither disprove or validate MON's one.

But the theory put around by Villadawg and others at the time was that MON was effectively having Milner sold from under him and Ireland forced upon him. Naturally there was no evidence (or facts) forthcoming to substantiate this theory.  It is  a fact that the General came on here and elsewhere and said it was purely a wage bill issue. MON was asked to abide by it, agreed in May but just before the start of the season changed his mind.  The General also confirmed that Ireland was MON's choice. As Ireland himself did later in the season when he wasn't getting a game under GH.

At any time, MON could have refuted that if he genuinely thought the clubs response wasn't an accurate surmation of events. He certainly had the chance when it came to the tribunual, to put his side of events out there as a matter of public record. Yet compare and contrast with Curbishley's statement:

The League Managers Association (LMA) is able to confirm that Martin O’Neill OBE and Aston Villa have finalised all issues in relation to his departure from the club in August 2010.

The matter was placed before the FA Premier League Managers’ Arbitration Tribunal, but was resolved during the course of the hearing.

Premier League managers' contracts contain a clause requiring the parties to mediate their differences in the event of a dispute, and, if the dispute cannot be resolved at mediation, that the case moves forward to the Premier League Managers’ Arbitration Tribunal.

The Tribunal is ideally placed to resolve disputes of this nature, combining the skills and experience of prominent individuals from football and the law.

Commenting after the hearing, Martin O’Neill said:

"It has taken a long time to deal with this matter but I am pleased that all issues have now been amicably finalised. I am very proud to have managed Aston Villa and I wish the club all the best for the future. I would also like to thank the LMA and my outstanding legal team, led by Paul Gilroy QC, and Geldards, solicitors, for their support and hard work in bringing my case to this very satisfactory conclusion. I am now looking forward to the future and getting back into football management."

No mention there of players sold against his will, the club being in breach of contract when it came to transfers or anything else. If the argument is that he'd been paid off and kept the juicy stuff under his hat, then how does that tally with the notion of a man of such integrity that we were lucky to even breathe the same air as him for four years. If he'd resigned on a point of principle, why not make the principle known?

It seems that the rumours (or conjecture, if you will) suggesting MON was getting itchy feet as far back as March might not have been so wide of the mark after all. The links to Liverpool increased in frequency from that point onwards, both here and in the media. To the point that even playing staff commented on it post MON walkout.

[Sexual Ealing]

Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law. 

The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."

hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.

You're confusing yourself, you poor love.

If his contract was breached, and all he wanted was for its terms to be honoured, why would he subject himself or Villa to a public trial if there was an alternative? No, it's the guilty party who has the most to lose from full disclosure.

Of course, if MO'N was the guilty party I'm pretty sure General K, Pelty & Dave W. would have let us have some clear evidence by now.

[Greg N'Ash]

I know probably any manager could come up with something he wasn't happy about during his time in charge that he could claim he resigned about. Just as in any job. Whether its nasty emails (AM) or not getting a blank cheque book (MON). allegedly

But they don't, though, do they?

DO'L didn't, Scolari didn't, Hodgson didn't, Souness didn't, Jewell didn't, Ramos didn't, Jol didn't, Robson didn't, Zola didn't.

And even if they had, the club wouldn't have paid out.

Go on...

but they're not a litigious c***s are they? And in a lot of cases they would have won but they couldn't arsed/got a decent settlement. which leaves MON.... just do a google for MON wins case or MON wins damages and read some of them... there's pelenty of them

Really? DO'L, Souness, Jewell...the only thing keeping them from millions of unearned pounds is their inherent decency (as opposed to that tyrant O'Neill)?

Ok, Greg. Ok.

well thats where we disagree. I never remember DOL sueing any villa fans for slagging him off.

[dave.woodhall]

Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law. 

The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."

hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.

You're confusing yourself, you poor love.

If his contract was breached, and all he wanted was for its terms to be honoured, why would he subject himself or Villa to a public trial if there was an alternative? No, it's the guilty party who has the most to lose from full disclosure.

Of course, if MO'N was the guilty party I'm pretty sure General K, Pelty & Dave W. would have let us have some clear evidence by now.

He walked out. How in God's name does that make him anything other than guilty?

[Greg N'Ash]

Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law. 

The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."

hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.

You're confusing yourself, you poor love.

If his contract was breached, and all he wanted was for its terms to be honoured, why would he subject himself or Villa to a public trial if there was an alternative? No, it's the guilty party who has the most to lose from full disclosure.

Of course, if MO'N was the guilty party I'm pretty sure General K, Pelty & Dave W. would have let us have some clear evidence by now.

who said his contract was breached?? we don't know that... you're just making this up as you go along.

[Sexual Ealing]

I might have missed it with all the other shenanigans going on, but did MON claim constructive dismissal?  I'm aware there was a payout and settlement, but that doesn't necessarily amount to the same thing.

This is what occurred when Alan Curbishley went that route and the tribunal found in his favour (and here's a link just for you villainous, you old sweetie pie you) :  clicky

We can confirm that Alan Curbishley and West Ham have finalised all issues in relation to his departure from the club. The Managers' arbitration tribunal of the FA Premier League previously had unanimously upheld Alan Curbishley's claim of wrongful dismissal against West Ham United Football Club.

"He resigned at the beginning of the 2008-09 season after the club sold Anton Ferdinand and subsequently George McCartney to Sunderland against his wishes.

"The tribunal upheld Alan Curbishley's right to have ultimate sole authority in relation to the sale and purchase of players, found that the conduct of the club amounted to a fundamental breach of contract and that Alan Curbishley was therefore entitled to resign."

Different cases different outcomes of course. The findings in Curbisley's case neither disprove or validate MON's one.

But the theory put around by Villadawg and others at the time was that MON was effectively having Milner sold from under him and Ireland forced upon him. Naturally there was no evidence (or facts) forthcoming to substantiate this theory.  It is  a fact that the General came on here and elsewhere and said it was purely a wage bill issue. MON was asked to abide by it, agreed in May but just before the start of the season changed his mind.  The General also confirmed that Ireland was MON's choice. As Ireland himself did later in the season when he wasn't getting a game under GH.

At any time, MON could have refuted that if he genuinely thought the clubs response wasn't an accurate surmation of events. He certainly had the chance when it came to the tribunual, to put his side of events out there as a matter of public record. Yet compare and contrast with Curbishley's statement:

The League Managers Association (LMA) is able to confirm that Martin O’Neill OBE and Aston Villa have finalised all issues in relation to his departure from the club in August 2010.

The matter was placed before the FA Premier League Managers’ Arbitration Tribunal, but was resolved during the course of the hearing.

Premier League managers' contracts contain a clause requiring the parties to mediate their differences in the event of a dispute, and, if the dispute cannot be resolved at mediation, that the case moves forward to the Premier League Managers’ Arbitration Tribunal.

The Tribunal is ideally placed to resolve disputes of this nature, combining the skills and experience of prominent individuals from football and the law.

Commenting after the hearing, Martin O’Neill said:

"It has taken a long time to deal with this matter but I am pleased that all issues have now been amicably finalised. I am very proud to have managed Aston Villa and I wish the club all the best for the future. I would also like to thank the LMA and my outstanding legal team, led by Paul Gilroy QC, and Geldards, solicitors, for their support and hard work in bringing my case to this very satisfactory conclusion. I am now looking forward to the future and getting back into football management."

No mention there of players sold against his will, the club being in breach of contract when it came to transfers or anything else. If the argument is that he'd been paid off and kept the juicy stuff under his hat, then how does that tally with the notion of a man of such integrity that we were lucky to even breathe the same air as him for four years. If he'd resigned on a point of principle, why not make the principle known?

It seems that the rumours (or conjecture, if you will) suggesting MON was getting itchy feet as far back as March might not have been so wide of the mark after all. The links to Liverpool increased in frequency from that point onwards, both here and in the media. To the point that even playing staff commented on it post MON walkout.

I've already come clean - I don't know what happened.

My point is that you and greg and D.W know as much as I do - nothing.

I'm happy to be corrected on that if I'm wrong (please do share what you know in that case). Otherwise, just admit that you don't know.

There's no shame in ignorance, only in lies.

[Sexual Ealing]

Ok. Greg was insisting that O'Neill was using the LMA mediation/tribunal route as a swindle to avoid a proper employment court. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't anything to do with O'Neill or Villa for that matter. It is a PL rule that they have to go down that route before they can revert to civil law. 

The fact they came to an agreement before a tribunal ruling suggests they should have settled at mediation. The only comment I've read on the proceedings was Charles Sale in the Daily Mail who said "Lerner is known to have been shocked by the fierce cross-examination he received during the tribunal hearing of former manager Martin O’Neill."

hang on, why accept it then? He could have got twice the money and told us all about how he was shafted in a proper tribunal - HE LIKES GOING TO COURT, so why? Unless all it was about was free money and not his reputation.

You're confusing yourself, you poor love.

If his contract was breached, and all he wanted was for its terms to be honoured, why would he subject himself or Villa to a public trial if there was an alternative? No, it's the guilty party who has the most to lose from full disclosure.

Of course, if MO'N was the guilty party I'm pretty sure General K, Pelty & Dave W. would have let us have some clear evidence by now.

He walked out. How in God's name does that make him anything other than guilty?

Guilty of what though? Walking out, or being effectively forced out?

I think it's weird that you can't see a distinction.